Every claim on your assets is extracted, classified and ruled against four published rule sets. Nothing is judged on taste, and every finding names the standard it fails.
Severity is not a measure of how strong a claim sounds. It is a measure of consequence — what happens if a regulator or a platform reads the sentence the way it is written.
Names or implies a disease state, or asserts a clinical outcome. Warning-letter and listing-suppression exposure. Fix before anything else ships.
Unsubstantiated efficacy or safety language. Defensible only with competent and reliable scientific evidence you can produce on request.
Comparative, superlative or ranking language restricted by platform policy. Usually a wording change rather than a strategy change.
Whether a claim describes an effect on normal structure or function, or crosses into diagnosing, treating, curing or preventing a condition. The boundary that turns a supplement into an unapproved drug.
Whether the evidence you hold supports the claim as a consumer would read it, including the net impression of the page as a whole rather than each sentence in isolation.
Restricted claim categories, prohibited terms, and the specific language that triggers search suppression or ASIN takedown.
Personal-attribute and health-outcome rules that get ad accounts restricted, applied to live creative and to the email flows behind them.
Shoppers increasingly ask an assistant which supplement to buy. The answer is assembled from your listing, your reviews and third-party coverage — and it routinely restates your careful structure/function language as a flat health claim.
It is still your claim. The same pharmacist judgement applies, and we read assistant answers about your product the same way we read your listing.
“…this supplement treats anxiety and improves sleep quality…”
Flagged: the assistant upgraded a compliant calm-support claim into a disease-treatment claim. The report shows which source passage caused it and the rewrite that stops it.
ASIN or product URL, plus access to whichever ad accounts and email flows you want in scope. About ten minutes of your time.
Each assertion is pulled from your live assets and classified. Extraction is machine-run, which is why the audit costs what it does.
Every severity rating and every rewrite is decided and signed by a licensed pharmacist. The judgement is not automated.
Findings, severities, rewrites and your peer benchmark. Formatted so a copywriter can implement it without interpretation.
No finding leaves this office without a licensed pharmacist's signature on it.
Extraction surfaces candidate claims. A licensed pharmacist decides what each one actually asserts, what severity it carries, and whether the rewrite still says something you are willing to stand behind commercially.
That judgement is the difference between a keyword list and a review. It is also why the report is worth handing to a retailer, a broker or an acquirer.